Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 083187
   

File Number: 083187 File Type: Ordinance Status: Adopted
Version: 0 Reference: 08-111 Control: Board of County Commissioners
File Name: AMEND SECTION 2-11.1(T) RELATING TO CONE OF SILENCE Introduced: 11/3/2008
Requester: NONE Cost: Final Action: 10/7/2008
Agenda Date: 10/7/2008 Agenda Item Number: 7A
Notes: THIS IS FINAL VERSION AS ADOPTED. ALSO SEE 082599. Title: ORDINANCE RELATING TO CONE OF SILENCE AMENDING SECTION 2-11.1(T) OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE [SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 082599]
Indexes: CONE OF SILENCE
Sponsors: Jose "Pepe" Diaz, Prime Sponsor
Sunset Provision: No Effective Date: Expiration Date:
Registered Lobbyist: None Listed


Legislative History

Acting Body Date Agenda Item Action Sent To Due Date Returned Pass/Fail

County Attorney 11/3/2008 Assigned David M. Murray

Board of County Commissioners 10/7/2008 7A AMENDED Adopted as amended P
REPORT: First Assistant County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Chairman Barreiro suggested this proposed ordinance be amended to lift the Cone of Silence on the County Commission in the provisions on when the Cone of Silence would apply in Section 2-11.1(t).1.(a) and Section 2-11.1(t).2.(a), as well as in the exceptions in Section 2-11.1(t).1.(c). Commissioner Diaz noted he added an amendment regarding a time limit for the County Manager to make a recommendation on the selection committee’s proposal. Commissioner Sosa suggested this proposed ordinance be amended to delete any provision that would allow members of the selection committee to communicate openly. She expressed concern that communication by the selection committee would lead to scandals. She noted she could not support a change that would lift the Cone of Silence on commissioners. Commissioner Sosa suggested that the following language be deleted from the proposed amended language on handwritten page 5: “and any member of the selection committee therefor intended to influence the selection committee’s recommendation.” Assistant County Attorney David Murray advised this proposed ordinance could be amended to address Commissioner Sosa’s concerns by deleting the underlined language and resurrecting the stricken language on handwritten page 5. Commissioner Sosa suggested this proposed ordinance be amended to add the following language regarding County staff communication: “While the Cone of Silence is in effect County staff shall create a written record of any oral communication with potential vendors, service providers, bidders, lobbyists, or consultants related to or regarding solicitations, bid proposal, or other competitive processes. The record shall indicate the date of such communication, the persons to whom staff communicated, and a general summation of the communication. This subsection applies to all communications made while the Cone of Silence is in effect for a particular solicitation.” Commissioner Sosa emphasized the intent of her suggestion was to eliminate the selection committee members from outside communication to prevent anyone from manipulating the system. In response to Commissioner Jordan’s comments regarding the impact of this proposed ordinance on the Cone of Silence, Ms. Miriam Singer, Director, Department of Procurement Management (DPM), clarified this proposal would allow a selection committee member to communicate with a department director before the committee made its recommendation to the County Manager as long as the communication did not intend to influence the selection committee’s recommendation. Commissioner Jordan expressed concern regarding the subjectivity of the language “not intended to influence the selection committee’s recommendation.” Responding to Commissioner Jordan’s inquiry regarding a Commissioner communicating with County staff after the selection committee made its recommendation to the County Manager, Ms. Singer noted this proposed resolution would allow such communication. Commissioner Jordan clarified the Cone of Silence would still be in place on communication with anyone except for the County Commission with County staff until the County Manager made his recommendation. In response to Commissioner Heyman’s question regarding the impact of selection committee dialogue with County staff on the effectiveness of the procurement process, Ms. Singer noted this proposed ordinance should facilitate the procurement process. She pointed out that under the existing process the Procurement Management Department had to address questions by email or by scheduling Government-in-the-Sunshine meetings 2 business days in advance; this proposed ordinance would eliminate those barriers. Commissioner Heyman expressed concern that a department director could be biased to a specific vendor and that the department director could use that bias to influence a Commissioner before the County Manager made his recommendation on a solicitation to the County Commission. Responding to Commissioner Heyman, Commissioner Diaz noted this proposed ordinance required the County Manager to provide a written explanation of his recommendation, if it was different than the selection committee’s recommendation. Commissioner Heyman questioned whether the Commission could communicate directly with a department director or with only the County Manager. Assistant County Attorney Murray advised this proposed ordinance would create an exception that would allow Commissioners to speak orally with department directors at briefings. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Heyman and Commissioner Diaz regarding the issue of the County Commission communicating with department directors as opposed to the County Manager. Assistant County Attorney Murray advised the issue of the County Commission communicating with department directors as opposed to the County Manager could be remedied by amending this proposed ordinance to change “department directors” to “the County Mayor or his designee” on handwritten page 7. Responding to Commissioner Heyman’s comments regarding the Procurement Management Department documenting communication, Ms. Singer noted the department could include a note in the project file every time communication was made regarding the contract. Chairman Barreiro expressed concern that this proposed ordinance would take power away from the County Commission. He pointed out that county commissioners in other Florida counties sat on selection committees and they had input regarding the content of solicitations. He noted the State Prosecutor, the Federal Prosecutor, the Inspector General, and the Miami-Dade Police Public Corruption Unit could investigate a solicitation if someone did something wrong. Chairman Barreiro expressed concern that this proposed ordinance would not expedite the procurement process. He suggested the County Commission eliminate the complete Cone of Silence. Commissioner Seijas noted she concurred with Chairman Barreiro’s comments. She explained the County did not legislate behind the scenes. She stressed that the Commission was full of honest commissioners, and that the Commission could not legislate behavior. Chairman Barreiro conducted a straw vote to completely eliminate the Cone of Silence, and upon being put to a vote, the Commission voted 5-7 on this issue (Commissioners Gimenez, Heyman, Moss, Souto, Sorenson, Edmonson, and Sosa voted “No”; Commissioner Martinez was absent) First Assistant County Attorney Price-Williams advised the County Commission could not repeal the Cone of Silence; that action was outside the scope of this proposed ordinance. Commissioner Martinez noted he would support the complete elimination of the Cone of Silence. In response to Commissioner Gimenez’s inquiry regarding the impact of the proposed added language at the end of Section 2-11.1(t).2(a), on handwritten page 8, Assistant County Attorney David Murray advised the impact of the cited language would be that staff members listed in the original specification would be permitted to communicate with outside firms and vendors without violating the Cone of Silence. Commissioner Gimenez questioned whether the staff members listed in the specification would be on the selection committee. Assistant County Attorney Murray advised this proposed ordinance did not have a provision that would preclude the staff members from sitting on the selection committee. Ms. Singer clarified the communication allowed between staff and outside firms and vendors in Section 2-11.1(t).2(a) would be for follow up questions regarding scheduling, timing, responsibility, and responsiveness. She pointed out, traditionally, DPM staff did not serve on the selection committee, except as the non-voting chair responsible to carry out the selection committee process. Responding to Commissioner Gimenez’s question regarding the commissioners communicating with the County Mayor or Manager after the selection committee made it recommendation, Assistant County Attorney Murray advised the proposed amendment to change “department directors” to “the County Mayor or his designee” on handwritten page 7 would create an exception to the Cone of Silence for communication between commissioners and the Mayor or his designee or for communication at briefings. In response to Commissioner Gimenez clarifying this proposed ordinance would prohibit commissioners from communication with the County Mayor or Manager that intended to influence the County Mayor or Manager’s selection, Assistant County Attorney Murray advised that communication between the County Mayor or Manager and commissioners would be prohibited only after the selection committee made its recommendation to the County Mayor or Manager. Commissioner Gimenez noted he opposed the methods of other Florida counties to have county commissioners sit on selection committees and have input regarding the content of solicitations. He explained the County Commission should be an objective body to the County Administration. Commissioner Gimenez suggested this proposed ordinance be amended to require the County Manager to provide the County Commission with a written explanation regarding his delay in making a recommendation on a procurement item if he had not provided the Commission with his recommendation 90 days after the selection committee made its recommendation to the County Manager. Commissioner Sorenson noted she supported this proposed ordinance as presented. In response to Commissioner Moss’ request for clarification on the suggested amendments, Assistant County Attorney Murray provided an overview of the amendments in this proposed ordinance as presented. He noted the following additional amendments had been suggested during discussion of this proposal: • To delete the underlined language and to resurrect the stricken language on handwritten page 5; • To add a provision that any County staff having permissible communications with an outside entity or person while the Cone of Silence was in effect must make a record of that communication; • To change “department directors” to “the County Mayor or his designee” on handwritten page 7; • To require the County Manager to make a recommendation on a solicitation to the County Commission within 90 days after he received the selection committee’s original recommendation, or to provide the County Commission with a report explaining what delayed him from providing a recommendation within 90 days; and • To require that a memorandum detailing the reason(s) the County Manager’s recommendation on a solicitation changed the recommendation of the selection committee. Regarding the suggested amendment that any County staff having permissible communications with an outside entity or person while the Cone of Silence was in effect must make a record of that communication, Commissioner Moss questioned whether the document that would be generated to comply with this suggested amendment would be a public record. Assistant County Attorney Murray advised that document would be a public record. Responding to Commissioner Moss’ concern regarding outside entities contacting him on a solicitation before the County Manager made his recommendation, Commissioner Diaz explained this proposed ordinance would only allow communication to provide clarification between commissioners and County staff, and outside entities should not contact commissioners until after the County Manager made his recommendation. Commissioner Jordan pointed out the County Manger approved each solicitation twice; the first approval was to approve the selection committee recommendation, and the second approval was to approve the proposed contract negotiated by the selection committee. She suggested the County Manager approve the selection committee’s recommendation within 30 days. Commissioner Gimenez concurred with Commissioner Jordan’s suggestion, and he clarified his proposal was for the County Manager’s final recommendation to come before the Commission within 90 days after he received the selection committee’s original recommendation. County Manager Burgess noted the proposed 30 and 90 day time limits were reasonable. He noted he would apprise the Commission of an extreme situation that delayed his recommendation on a solicitation. Commissioner Jordan pointed out the real power in the solicitation process was establishing the Request for Proposal (RFP) specifications. She noted she opposed the impact of the Cone of Silence on the efficiency of the solicitation process. She clarified this proposed ordinance did not significantly change the inefficiencies of the solicitation process caused by the Cone of Silence. Commissioner Martinez expressed concern that this proposed ordinance with the suggested amendments would provide the County Administration with more power. He noted he supported eliminating the entire Cone of Silence. Responding to concerns from Commissioners Moss and Sosa regarding outside entities contacting their offices before the County Manager made his final recommendation, Commissioner Diaz noted commissioners were entitled to establish their own policies regarding when they would talk to outside entities. Commissioner Diaz accepted the following suggested amendments: • To change “department directors” to “the County Mayor or his designee” on handwritten page 7; • To require the County Manager to approve the selection committee’s recommendation or authorize the selection committee to negotiate with the vendor(s) within 30 days after the selection committee forwarded its original recommendation to the County Manager; • To require the County Manager to make a recommendation on a solicitation to the County Commission within 90 days after he received the selection committee’s original recommendation, or to provide the County Commission with a report explaining what delayed him from providing a recommendation within 90 days; • To require that a memorandum detailing the reason(s) the County Manager’s recommendation on a solicitation changed the recommendation of the selection committee. Commissioner Diaz explained the underlined language on handwritten page 5 that Commissioner Sosa suggested to delete was included in this proposed ordinance at the request of DPM. He noted he would accept Commissioner Sosa’s suggested amendment if DPM and the Commission on Ethics and Public Trust supported it. Commissioner Sosa noted she suggested amending this proposed ordinance to remove the language that could allow the selection committee to be pressured to recommend a specific vendor, and to establish a log of communication with vendors. Mr. Robert Meyers, Director, Commission on Ethics and Public Trust, noted he opposed allowing any of the selection committee members to communicate with anyone until the selection committee made its recommendation. He spoke in support of the selection committee maintaining a log of conversations with outside entities. He clarified the conversations with outside entities should be limited to only what was necessary. Mr. Meyers noted he supported both of Commissioner Sosa’s suggested amendments. Ms. Singer noted the intent of the proposed amended language on handwritten page 5 was to provide the selection committee with an opening in the Cone of Silence to allow effective communications that would help the selection committee make good business decisions. Commissioner Diaz accepted Commissioner Sosa’s suggested amendments. Hearing no other questions or comments, the Commission proceeded to vote on this proposed ordinance as amended: • To delete the underlined language and to resurrect the stricken language on handwritten page 5; • To add a provision that any County staff having permissible communications with an outside entity or person while the Cone of Silence was in effect must make a record of that communication; • To change “department directors” to “the County Mayor or his designee” on handwritten page 7; • To require the County Manager to approve the selection committee’s recommendation or authorize the selection committee to negotiate with the vendor(s) within 30 days after the selection committee forwarded its original recommendation to the County Manager; • To require the County Manager to make a recommendation on a solicitation to the County Commission within 90 days after he received the selection committee’s original recommendation, or to provide the County Commission with a report explaining what delayed him from providing a recommendation within 90 days; • To require that a memorandum detailing the reason(s) the County Manager’s recommendation on a solicitation changed the recommendation of the selection committee.

Legislative Text


TITLE
ORDINANCE RELATING TO CONE OF SILENCE AMENDING SECTION 2-11.1(t) OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

BODY
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Section 2-11.1 (t) of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows:1
Sec 2-11.1 (t). Cone of Silence.

1.    Contracts for the provision of goods and service other than audit and independent private sector inspector general (IPSIG) contracts.

(a) "Cone of Silence" is hereby defined to mean a prohibition on: (i) any communication regarding a particular RFP, RFQ or bid between a potential vendor, service provider, bidder, lobbyist, or consultant and the County's professional staff including, but not limited to, the County Manager and his or her staff; (ii) any communication regarding a particular RFP, RFQ or bid between the Mayor, County Commissioners or their respective staffs and any member of the County's professional staff including, but not limited to, the County Manager and his or her staff; (iii) any communication regarding a particular RFP, RFQ or bid between a potential vendor, service provider, bidder, lobbyist, or consultant and any member of the selection committee therefor; (iv) any communication regarding a particular RFP, RFQ or bid between the Mayor, County Commissioners or their respective staffs and any member of the selection committee therefor; >> and << (v) any communication regarding a particular RFP, RFQ or bid between a potential vendor, service provider, bidder, lobbyist, or consultant and the Mayor, County Commissioners and their respective staffs and (vi) any communication regarding a particular RFP, RFQ, or bid between any member of the County’s professional staff and any member of the selection committee therefore. The County Manager and the Chairperson of the selection committee may communicate about a particular selection recommendation, but only after the committee has submitted an award recommendation to the manager and provided that should any change occur in the committee recommendation, the content of the communication and of the corresponding change >>as well as the reasons for such change<< shall be described in writing and filed by the Manager with the Clerk of the Board and be included in any recommendation submitted by the Manager to the Board of County Commissioners. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Cone of Silence shall not apply to (i) competitive processes for the award of CDBG, HOME, SHIP and Surtax Funds administered by the Miami-Dade County Office of Community and Economic Development and the community-based organization (CBO) competitive grant processes administered by the Park and Recreation, Library, Water and Sewer, and Solid Waste Departments, Cultural Affairs and Tourist Development Councils and the Department of Environmental Resources Management; (ii) communications with the County Attorney and his or her staff; (iii) communications between a potential vendor, service provider, bidder, consultant or lobbyist and employees of the Management and Technical Assistance Unit of the Department of Business Development regarding small business and/or minority business programs, the Community Business Enterprise and Equitable Distribution Programs; (iv) communications between a potential vendor, service provider, bidder, consultant or lobbyist and employees responsible for administering disadvantaged business enterprise programs in County departments receiving federal funds, provided the communications are limited strictly to matters of programmatic process or procedure; (v) duly noticed site visits to determine the competency of bidders regarding a particular bid during the time period between the opening of bids and the time the County Manager makes his or her written recommendation; (vi) any emergency procurement of goods or services pursuant to Administrative Order 3-2; (vii) communications regarding a particular RFP, RFQ or bid between any person and the Vendor Information Center staff, the procurement agent or contracting officer responsible for administering the procurement process for such RFP, RFQ or bid, provided the communication is limited strictly to matters of process or procedure already contained in the corresponding solicitation document; and (viii) [[communications regarding a particular RFP, RFQ or bid between the procurement agent or contracting officer, or their designated secretarial/clerical staff responsible for administering the procurement process for such RFP, RFQ or bid and a member of the selection committee therefor provided the communication is limited strictly to matters of process or procedure already contained in the corresponding solicitation document.]]>>communications between a potential vendor, service provider or bidder and employees of the Department of Procurement Management or other department identified in the solicitation document as the issuing department; and (ix) consultations by employees of the Department of Procurement Management with professional procurement colleagues in determining an appropriate approach or option involving a solicitation in progress.<<

(b)    Procedure.

(i) A Cone of Silence shall be imposed upon each RFP, RFQ and bid after the advertisement of said RFP, RFQ or bid. At the time of imposition of the Cone of Silence, the County Manager or his or her designee shall provide for public notice of the Cone of Silence. The County Manager shall issue a written notice thereof to the affected departments, file a copy of such notice with the Clerk of the Board, with a copy thereof to each Commissioner, and shall include in any public solicitation for goods and services a statement disclosing the requirements of this ordinance. [[Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, the imposition of a Cone of Silence on a particular RFP, RFQ or bid shall not preclude staff from obtaining industry comment or performing market research therefor provided all communications related thereto between a potential vendor, service provider, bidder, lobbyist, or consultant and any member of the County's professional staff including, but not limited to, the County Manager and his or her staff are in writing or are made at a duly noticed public meeting.]]

(ii)    The Cone of Silence shall terminate at the time the Manager makes his or her written recommendation to the County Commission; provided, however, that if the Commission refers the Manager's recommendation back to the Manager or staff for further review, the Cone of Silence shall be reimposed until such time as the Manager makes a subsequent written recommendation. The foregoing notwithstanding, for contracts and purchases which the County Manager has the delegated authority to award under Sec. 2-8.1(b) of this Code, the Cone of Silence shall terminate: (i) at the time the award recommendation letter is issued and filed with the Clerk of the Board for such contracts and purchases involving the expenditure of over one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000); (ii) at the time the written award recommendation is posted in accordance with Section III of A.O. 3-21 for such contracts or purchases involving the expenditure of over $25,000 up to $100,000; or (iii) at the time the award recommendation is issued in accordance with Section IV of A.O. 3-21 for contracts and purchases involving the expenditure of $25,000 or less.

(iii) >>While the Cone of Silence is in effect, County Staff shall create a written record of any oral communications with potential vendor, service provider, bidder, lobbyist, or consultant related to or regarding a solicitation, bid, proposal, or other competitive process. The record shall indicate the date of such communication, the persons to whom staff communicated, and a general summation of the communication. This sub-section applies to all communications made while the Cone of Silence is in effect for a particular solicitation. <<.

(c)    Exceptions..>> (i)<>(ii) The provisions of this ordinance shall also not apply to oral communications at briefings held by county commissioners and the County Mayor or his designee, after the selection committee or other evaluating group makes its recommendation to the County Manager, provided that the briefings are not intended to influence the outcome of the selection committee or other evaluating group’s recommendation to the County Manager; provided, however that this exception shall not apply to outside groups such as lobbyists or representatives of the responding or bidding companies or entities.<<


2.    Audit and IPSIG contracts.

(a) "Cone of Silence" is hereby defined to mean a prohibition on: (a) any communication regarding a particular RFP, RFQ or bid between a potential vendor, service provider, bidder, lobbyist, or consultant and the Mayor, County Commissioners or their respective staffs and any member of the County's professional staff including, but not limited to, the County Manager and his or her staff; and (b) any oral communication regarding a particular RFP, RFQ or bid between the Mayor, County Commissioners or their respective staffs and any member of the County's professional staff including, but not limited to, the County Manager and his or her staff. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Cone of Silence shall not apply to>> (a)<< communications with the County Attorney and his or her staff; >> (b) communications between a potential vendor, service provider or bidder and employees of the Department of Procurement Management or other department identified in the solicitation document as the issuing department; and (c) consultations by employees of the Department of Procurement Management with professional procurement colleagues in determining an appropriate approach or option involving a solicitation in progress. <<

(b) Except as provided in Subsections 2(c) and 2(d) hereof, a Cone of Silence shall be imposed upon each RFP, RFQ and bid for audit and IPSIG services after the advertisement of said RFP, RFQ or bid. At the time of the imposition of the Cone of Silence, the County Manager or his or her designee shall provide for the public notice of the Cone of Silence. The Cone of Silence shall terminate when the County Manager executes a particular audit or IPSIG contract.

(c) Nothing contained herein shall prohibit any bidder or proposer: (i) from making public presentations at duly noticed pre-bid conferences or before duly noticed selection committee meetings; (ii) from engaging in contract negotiations during any duly noticed public meeting; or (iii) from communicating in writing with any County employee or official for purposes of seeking clarification or additional information from the County or responding to the County's request for clarification or additional information, subject to the provisions of the applicable RFP, RFQ or bid documents. The bidder or proposer shall file a copy of any written communication with the Clerk of the Board. The Clerk of the Board shall make copies available to the general public upon request.

(d) Nothing contained herein shall prohibit any lobbyist, bidder, proposer or other person or entity from publicly addressing the Board of County Commissioners during any duly noticed public meeting regarding action on any audit or IPSIG contract. The County Manager shall include in any public solicitation for auditing or IPSIG services a statement disclosing the requirements of this ordinance.

3. Penalties. In addition to the penalties provided in Subsections (s) and (v) hereof, violation of this Subsection (t) by a particular bidder or proposer shall render any RFP award, RFQ award or bid award to said bidder or proposer voidable. Any person who violates a provision of this ordinance shall be prohibited from serving on a Miami-Dade County competitive selection committee. In addition to any other penalty provided by law, violation of any provision of this ordinance by a Miami-Dade County employee shall subject said employee to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. Additionally, any person who has personal knowledge of a violation of this ordinance shall report such violation to the State Attorney and/or may file a complaint with the Ethics Commission.

4. The requirements of Section 2-11.1(t) shall not apply to any municipality in Miami-Dade County that has adopted an ordinance providing that the cone of silence shall not apply to that municipality. Any municipality that opts out of the requirements of Section 2-11.1(t) shall provide the Ethics Commission with a copy of the ordinance.

5. >>Within thirty days of a recommendation from a selection committee, the County Mayor or his designee shall either appoint a negotiation committee or take other affirmative action with respect to the solicitation, including but not limited to rejection of proposals or recommendation for award. In the event that negotiations have not commenced within thirty days, or if such other affirmative action has not been taken within thirty days, the County Mayor or his designee shall report such event, and the reasons therefore, to the Board of County Commissioners. Additionally, the County Mayor or his designee shall present the Clerk of the Board with a recommendation for award, or a recommendation to reject proposals, within ninety days from the date a selection committee makes a recommendation. In the event that the County Mayor or his designee has not provided such recommendation to the Clerk of the Board within ninety days, the County Mayor or his designee shall provide a report on the status of the solicitation to the Board of County Commissioners, including the reasons for any delay. <<

(Ord. No. 99-1, § 1, 1-21-99; Ord. No. 00-149, § 1, 11-28-00; Ord. No. 01-149, § 1, 9-25-01; Ord. No. 01-150, § 1, 9-25-01; Ord. No. 02-3, § 1, 1-29-02; Ord. No. 04-77, § 1, 4-27-04)


Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity.









Section 3. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance, including any sunset provision, shall become and be made a part of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word.


1 Words stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] shall be deleted. Words underscored and/or >>double arrowed<< constitute the amendment proposed. Remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged.
??



Home  |   Agendas  |   Minutes  |   Legislative Search  |   Lobbyist Registration  |   Legislative Reports
2014 BCC Meeting Calendar  |   Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances   |   ADA Notice  |  

Home  |  Using Our Site  |  About Phone Directory  |  Privacy  |  Disclaimer

E-mail your comments, questions and suggestions to Webmaster  

Web Site © 2014 Miami-Dade County.
All rights reserved.